The five-second answer: break the bill into separate buckets
After roughly six years in a one-bedroom apartment, the repair section of the move-out statement came to about ¥147,000. After prorated-rent adjustments, the final payment was about ¥126,000.
That sounds large until the statement is separated into four different things: fixed charges created by the contract, wallpaper work, repair for damage that was actually caused by the tenant, and rent reconciliation.
A move-out bill is not one giant number. It is several different rules wearing one trench coat.
1. The inspection started with a scheduling mistake
The inspector did not arrive at the agreed time. After a call, the company found that the booking time in its system was off by about an hour.
The useful response was not simply “you are late.” It was to explain that later work had already been scheduled and the delay was creating additional rescheduling.
The company hurried the response, but one distinction still mattered: customer-service recovery for the delay is separate from legal or contractual responsibility for damage.
2. A furniture dent and a burn mark are not the same kind of floor damage
Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism gives furniture dents and installation marks as examples that can arise from ordinary use. Scratches caused during moving, by contrast, are often treated as tenant negligence.
In this case there were burn marks and other floor damage the occupant clearly recognized as self-caused. The final statement therefore included about ¥33,000 for localized floor repair.
For partial flooring repair, the ministry’s guideline generally does not apply age-based depreciation. Six years of occupancy does not automatically make that repair free.
3. Wallpaper can be charged by a whole wall, not by the size of the tiny mark
A contractor cannot always replace a few centimeters of wallpaper invisibly. Different production lots may have slightly different colors.
The ministry’s Q&A says square-meter charging is preferable, but in unavoidable cases the tenant may reasonably be charged for the wall surface containing the damaged section.
So three areas must be kept separate: the size of the actual mark, the area that must be worked on, and the amount ultimately borne by the tenant.
4. The wallpaper area fell from 32 m² to 20 m², saving about ¥17,000
The most concrete reduction came from the wallpaper scope. The initial discussion covered roughly 32 m², but after the walls were divided more carefully at the site, the final statement used 20 m².
At ¥1,430 per square meter, removing 12 m² reduced the amount by:
12 × ¥1,430 = ¥17,160.
That explains most of the feeling that “about twenty thousand yen disappeared.” It was less a mysterious discount than a narrower and more accurate scope of work.
5. Was the remaining difference a “lateness discount”? Maybe, but the statement does not prove it
It is tempting to label any unexplained few thousand yen as compensation for the scheduling error.
That makes a good joke, not a reliable accounting conclusion.
Unless the statement has a line such as “service recovery discount,” rent proration, prepaid rent, and other adjustments must be checked first.
6. The roughly ¥147,000 repair total becomes less mysterious when itemized
The anonymized statement was approximately:
| Item | Approximate amount |
|---|---|
| Room cleaning | ¥33,000 |
| Floor waxing | ¥11,000 |
| Air-conditioner cleaning | ¥11,000 |
| Lock replacement | ¥27,500 |
| Wallpaper replacement, 20 m² | ¥28,600 |
| Wallpaper cleaning | ¥3,300 |
| Floor repair | ¥33,000 |
| Total repair-related charges | ¥147,000 |
After prorated rent and prepaid rent were reconciled, the amount to be paid was about ¥126,000.
The key point is that the whole ¥126,000 was not “damage repair.” Several different categories were printed on the same settlement sheet.
7. Six-year wallpaper depreciation and special clauses are different layers
Under the ministry guideline, wallpaper is generally calculated so that its residual value falls to ¥1 after six years.
That does not mean every six-year tenant automatically pays nothing. It means age must be considered when the guideline applies to the wallpaper portion.
In this case, the manager also explained that the property had different contractual pricing structures, where paying more monthly could change how move-out costs were handled. That is a contract design, not a rule created by the ministry guideline.
The correct questions are therefore separate: Was the damage ordinary wear or negligence? What is the minimum repair unit? Does that component use age-based depreciation? What special clause was agreed to? What exactly does it cover?
8. Cleaning and lock replacement mattered because they were contract items
The manager explained that room cleaning and lock replacement were included under the contract’s special terms.
The ministry’s Q&A notes that the validity of a cleaning clause depends on factors such as whether the scope is clear, whether the tenant understood that ordinary wear may also be charged, and whether the amount is reasonable.
The lesson for the next lease is simple: do not inspect only monthly rent and move-in fees. Check which charges are waiting at the exit.
9. Move-in photos are one of the strongest forms of evidence
Photos from move-in made the inspection easier because they showed which marks already existed.
They are not merely weapons for a dispute. They reduce the need for both sides to trust six-year-old memories.
Human memory is not a high-resolution archive. A phone camera is much closer.
10. The same habit matters in employer-arranged housing
Company housing and employer-arranged apartments may use internal housing rules in addition to, or instead of, the structure of a normal direct lease.
On the first day, photograph the whole room, floors, wallpaper, doors, wet areas, and any provided furniture or appliances. Keep any condition photos supplied by the employer as well.
11. Use this order: fault, scope, age, contract, rent reconciliation
When a move-out bill arrives, read it in this sequence:
- Was the condition ordinary wear or tenant-caused damage?
- What is the minimum reasonable repair area?
- Does that material use age-based depreciation?
- What special clauses apply?
- Which figures are merely rent reconciliation?
This prevents both extremes: “¥126,000 must be a scam” and “I lived there six years, so everything must be free.”
12. Bottom line
About ¥126,000 after six years is not cheap, but the amount in this case became understandable once it was decomposed. There was genuine floor damage, the floor was repaired rather than fully replaced, wallpaper scope was cut from 32 to 20 m², and several fixed charges came from the contract.
The practical lesson is to read the exit clauses before signing, photograph the room on day one, and avoid creating burn marks.
That last point sounds embarrassingly obvious. A ¥33,000 repair line is an unusually persuasive teacher.
Official references
- MLIT, Guidelines on Restoration to Original Condition: https://www.mlit.go.jp/jutakukentiku/house/jutakukentiku_house_tk3_000020.html
- MLIT, Q&A on the revised guidelines: https://www.mlit.go.jp/jutakukentiku/house/jutakukentiku_house_tk3_000024.html
- MLIT, Age and restoration costs: https://www.mlit.go.jp/jutakukentiku/house/content/001611293.pdf
